Challenging our public school district’s obedience of county ‘health’ ‘orders’: District downgrades employee Grievance into straw-man ‘complaint’ they then dismiss, district refuses to provide EUA exemption information or answer obvious questions

Perhaps the most helpful communication is a summary of events to the most recent article, the specific updates when they occurred, and preview of coming events (articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32).

This is my best “shot” to explain, document, and prove the “Covid” + “vaccine” narrative are Crimes Against Humanity: a 4,700-word essay I sent to ~100 teacher colleagues.

Summary (links = full documentation): The California “lockdown orders” we were all told were necessary to “flatten the curve and keep hospitals running” have lasted since March 3, 2020. The California Emergency Services Act (ESA) is derived from California Government Code 8558 (b) that requires “beyond control” hospitals to authorize emergency dictatorial orders. Because Californians never received comprehensive hospital data, our government and corporate media “leaders” are lying in omission. Because problematic “positive cases” (and here, here) were substituted for “beyond control” hospitals, our leaders lie in commission. All testimony I’ve received from ~20 medical professionals here in NorCal report all hospitals they know of have been fully within their control throughout the “pandemic.”

As a NorCal public school teacher, at the start of our school year in September 2020 I inquired to our district’s leadership and teachers’ union how their negotiated policy to “obey” county “health” “orders” is legal given the above reasonable limits to dictatorial authority. I cited our mutual Oath to “support and defend” the US and CA Constitutions. I reminded the district I merely ask them as educated professional adults to perform what we expect from all our Californian Middle School students in our State teaching standards: “Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources.” (page 81).

After two requests, the district contact person responded by ignoring my questions, and that employees are required to obey “California mandates” “to protect you” under threat of being terminated. I emailed our district superintendent, school board members, my school principal and two interested teachers that we teach all high school students in our US History classes that the district’s position of “just following orders” is an illegal defense, and asked again how ESA limits are being honored.

After continued district silence, I filed three legal complaints: federal, state, and a grievance for district violation of worker safety to support apparent dictatorial and illegal policy under direct threat of employment termination, $1,000 fines per violation, and one year imprisonment under Cal. Penal Code §§ 69, 148(a)(1).

Our union responded with support to ask the district, and to communicate privately that they wouldn’t pursue the grievance to arbitration because the working conditions were negotiated in good faith. The grievance process finished with district and union agreement the complaint didn’t qualify as a grievance.

I appealed the district’s answer to our community school board for what the district redefined as a “written complaint.” From October 2 to December 18 2020 the district was silent, despite policy promising a response within 30 days of the board’s receipt. After this December 13 reminder they were out of compliance for a response, the superintendent answered that the school board upheld the district response without comment.

I also received a “non-response” after nearly 5 months from my complaint to the US Department of Justice regarding unlimited government. My complaint to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing complaint was fielded with a phone call response in December, with their promise to follow-up, and silence since then.

In March 2021, our NorCal public school superintendent sent all staff an email citing county deaths from COVID nearing 1,300 with 80,000 “cases.” He also asked for our professional responses to an upcoming survey. I responded with three basic questions: how many of our staff and students have died of (not with) Covid, what is the data for overall county deaths given controversy over causes of deaths, and how many staff and students have been injured by vaccines. He ignored my questions twice, which I then shared with our school’s ~100 teachers as Chair of a school Professional Learning Community (PLC) on broad educational topics directly affecting our school’s teaching and learning. A few teachers have communicated support, but our Social Science Department found no interest in this topic when I emailed them in inquiry.

Our district superintendent then answered my questions, and concluded with: “If you do not agree with the state and county guidelines or if you believe we are not following them, please pursue your questions and concerns with the appropriate agency.” I responded I would do so, and report my findings.

I followed up with 14 CA government agencies over 6 weeks, with all ignoring the question of how the limit of “beyond control” hospitals was being honored for “emergency” dictatorial authority, and CA Senator Glazer’s office stating the 60-day limit applied only to “non-safety” related orders. I hadn’t considered an American legislature would surrender forever dictatorial powers to a governor or elected officials without a time limit, as public recourse would be limited to recall (as is happening with Governor Newsom) or electing other legislators.

School district and CA government “answers” are therefore intentional lies of omission to claim they answered a question about ESA to “justify” dictatorial government while leaving out any consideration of crystal-clear letter and intent requiring that our hospitals are “beyond control.” The 14 CA government agencies claim dictatorial power to close businesses, stop social gatherings, force masking, force humans to forever remain no closer than six feet from each other, and with forever power until legislators or governor say otherwise, and while lying in commission that “emergency powers” are authorized by unreliable “positive” “cases.”

At the end of April 2021, I wrote a lengthy and fully documented report of those 14 CA government agencies’ responses, and emailed it with a cover letter to district leadership, school board members, teachers’ union leadership, our PLC members, and school teachers. The district’s Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources immediately responded with threats of disciplinary action for unspecified violations of district policies, as did my school principal. The district has yet to respond to my questions regarding their undocumented complaints as the “foundation” to their threats.

I appealed to our teachers’ union for relief (and here, here). After 4 emails and 15 days of silence from our union President and VP, I sent this email to 14 of the Board of Directors of our teachers’ union. Our President and VP then responded for a next step “to gain clarification regarding matters within our scope and discuss next steps, if any.” We Zoom-met, and our union President met with district Assistant Superintendent of HR on May 25, 2021. The district emailed me claiming my PLC report somehow “harasses or disparages” my colleagues “based on their political beliefs,” yet fails again to provide any documentation or explanation despite the union and my requests.

I filed three employee grievances for apparent contract violations, with our contract requiring my silence of proceedings. On July 8, I spoke by phone with our teachers’ union president, who reported that the district is again considering my Grievances as employee complaints, with HR Assistant Superintendent admitting failure to address my requests for the district to document and explain their complaints.

On July 9, 2021 our teachers’ union held a Zoom conference with ~100 teachers to explain the tentative agreement for work conditions for 2021 – ‘22 school year for staff, students, and families to obey “the most restrictive health measures” “ordered” by state, county or federal government. I asked the first question for our union to explain how the state has ordering authority given the strict limits of “beyond control” hospitals, with union president, VP, and another union board member responding they are still representing my question, but all legal information they’ve received is that there is no requirement to oppose ordering authority until proven in court.

My school district’s final answer to my three employee grievances came on July 21, 2021:
Teachers, staff, students and families will follow “health” “orders” because they are ordered.
“Health” “orders” are whatever is ordered. We will not respond to requests for documentation of what is ordered as “healthy,” nor even acknowledge the question was asked despite our legal obligation to explain how all policies are within the limits of the law.
If teachers ask further questions how our “health” “orders” are lawful or healthy, they will be disciplined up to termination under the “reason” that such questions “harass and/or disparage other’ political beliefs.”
On July 24 I responded to the district’s formal initiation of “disciplinary action steps” that lead to termination for unprofessional conduct by offering the district choice to finally cite their unsubstantiated complaints against me, withdraw the complaints and censorship, or face my attorney. On July 26, the district’s Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources responded in refusal to substantiate their claims of my unprofessional work; claiming “The District has provided you with the appropriate documentation that has sufficiently responded to your requests. At this time, there is no additional information that can be provided to you that has not already been provided.” Our teachers union President called me with analysis from her conversations with district leadership that the district is unwilling to look beyond their legal orders, and must be forced by court or legislative orders.

I had a productive first conversation with an America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) connected attorney, who promised to converse with her team to evaluate my case for possible lawsuit support. I have a second conversation scheduled to hopefully initiate lawsuit against my school district (and perhaps other parties).

On September 4, 2021, I reported to my ~100 teacher colleagues my best “shot” to “red pill” them about dozens of game-changing facts corporate media will never report (my published research on corporate media “reporting” lies known to be false as they were told for the many variants of the Wars on Terror). This report to teachers (at “Update 3”) makes a great essay to share with comprehensive facts of our big picture condition (and here).

On Friday September 17, our district superintendent announced the school board will address the question of mandatory student “vaccines” on Wednesday, September 22. I responded to district and teachers’ union leadership with legal notice of their prima facie-crimes, and initiated another employee Grievance for contract violation guaranteeing policies in conformance to law. My attorneys affiliated with AFLDS are watching district and union responses with professional interest, as they choose which cases are best to vigorously pursue.

On Wednesday September 22, the school board voted 5-0 to “mandate” full student “vaccination” for “Covid” (see my essay to ~100 teachers for absolute proofs for quotation marks). The public comment session for 1-minute remarks were ~15 against and ~25 for. Four parents and two employees contacted me, and I’ve initiated our organized work including informing the 3 attorneys paying full attention to these developing cases. I’m also actively engaged in three current employee Grievances, and will give our teachers’ union an ultimatum to honor our contract that all district policies be “in conformance with law” by standing with me against the district’s illegal “mandates” that violate US Codes 21 and 18, and California Government Code 8558 (b) that “emergency orders” authority requires “beyond control” local resources (hospitals in this case). CDC’s latest data seem definitive proof that California and national hospitals are well within control, just as each and every one of the ~20 local doctors, nurses, and other professionals I’ve asked have told me for 20 months.

On October 2, I sent a second email to our teachers’ union President, VP, and district Board Members arguing for their legal and Oath-sworn obligation to stand with me to force the district to explain the legality of their “health” “orders” given the above crystal-clear in letter and intent legal limits (the district’s stated position is “we just follow orders, and so will you”). Parents and employees are organizing. 3 teams of AFLDS attorneys are ready to file suit(s) if this case is considered the next best landmark case to pursue.

On October 17, 2021 I sent another Professional Learning Committee (PLC) report to district and union leaderships + Boards, and ~100 teacher colleagues with two central topics. First: HUSD refuses to address limits to state/county/district “health orders” regarding required student and teacher use of Emergency Use Authorized medical products (EUAs), despite :
Federal law Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) requiring EUAs be administered only and always with “option to refuse” experimental medicine.
Article 6 of the US Constitution is explicit that federal law is superior to state law/“mandates”/“orders.”
California Health and Safety Codes § 24171 to § 24176 uphold federal law that every individual: “Be given the opportunity to decide to consent or not to consent to a medical experiment without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence on the subject’s decision.”
The second topic of the October 17 PLC report is that our teachers’ union shared their position why “health orders” to “require” EUAs is lawful: the government is not kidnapping and forcibly injecting teachers. Yes, seriously; that’s their “legal” “justification.”

On October 21, 2021, our teachers’ union president emailed me to declare my employee grievance void that requested the district to either cite their legal authority for EUA work requirements given the limits of three definitive laws, or to downgrade “requirements for employment” to “advice.” The “reason” given was the union claims that the district doesn’t have to cite legal authority for policy because any proofs of illegal policies “do not concern violations of the CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement)” despite the CBA stating all district policies must be “in conformance with law.” Both HEA and HUSD claim that state dictatorial “orders” are sufficient legal authority to compel obedience, and both have never addressed our mutual STATE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE for We the People to serve as a check on exactly this problem of illegal dictatorial government orders. My three subsequent communications to union President, VP, and Board were unanswered.

On October 28, 2021, HUSD responded to my last employee Grievance of policy violating California Health and Safety Codes § 24171 to § 24176 by unilaterally declaring it “an email request” of an “employee complaint” “against the legality of EUAs” that they then dismissed because we all must “follow orders.” I challenged that stand, as well as challenging district refusal to answer basic questions about “official” exemptions to EUAs.

**

Update 1:

District unilaterally destroys my employee Grievance into a straw-man “email request” about an “employee complaint” “against the legality of EUAs” that they then dismissed because we all must “follow orders.” Text of district email, and my response requesting citation of authority to destroy a Grievance (with follow-up after 3 days of district silence):

(Assistant Superintendent)
pastedGraphic.png
Oct 28, 2021, 2:47 PM (3 days ago)
pastedGraphic.png
to me, my school principal, Superintendent, teachers’ union President and VP
pastedGraphic.png
Mr. Herman,

The District considers this email request to be a complaint against the legality of Emergency Use Authorization’s (EUAs). I am providing a similar response to a complaint responded to on October 1, 2020 as the same policies remain in effect.

The District continues to follow governing protocols referenced in our Board Policy 5141.22 and Education Code 32282 and 49403, which direct the District to cooperate with local health officer measures necessary for the prevention and control of communicable diseases.

The District does not consider your request a contract violation, and therefore is responding formally to your complaint rather than a grievance. The District considers this matter closed.

Kind regards,

**

Herman, Carl

Oct 28, 2021, 3:27 PM (3 days ago)pastedGraphic.png
pastedGraphic.png
to Assistant Superintendent, my school principal, Superintendent, teachers’ union President and VPpastedGraphic.png

(Assistant Superintendent),
Please cite the legal authority HUSD has to destroy a Grievance I wrote quoting CBA language with direct questions to HUSD about specific legal limits of definitive state law, and then to rebrand a contractual Grievance as a “complaint” with your own words that I did not say.

ARTICLE 3 contractually binds HUSD and HEA to policies “in conformance to law.” I’ve cited three definitive laws HUSD is violating, with this Grievance citing California Health and Safety Codes § 24171 to § 24176 that every individual: “Be given the opportunity to decide to consent or not to consent to a medical experiment without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence on the subject’s decision.”

The Grievance asks HUSD to explain how “cooperation with local health officer measures” is lawful when those measures violate the above law, or to stop cooperating with unlawful “orders.”

HUSD responds by ignoring the question, unilaterally voiding the Grievance, then repeats the prima facie-illegal “just follow dictatorial government orders no matter what legal limits exist.”

(Union President and VP): please explain HUSD’s authority to declare a Grievance as a “complaint” through destruction of the Grievance, and conjuring up a “complaint” with my name on it with words I did not say. If HEA and I are in agreement that HUSD has no such authority, then please advise me of my options with HEA to challenge HUSD.

Thank you,
pastedGraphic.png
**
Herman, Carl

7:20 AM (7 hours ago)
pastedGraphic.png
to Assistant Superintendent, my school principal, Superintendent, teachers’ union President and VP
pastedGraphic.png
2nd request:
(repeated text of previous email)

**

Update 2:

Emails requesting district to answer questions about EUA exemptions: It is my professional duty as an historian to share the following email chain demonstrating typical “official responses” I’ve received since Episode 1 of this series in September, 2020. Please note that the pain you may receive in reading is the reality of the battle I’m in:

Herman, Carl

Mon, Oct 11, 5:19 AM
pastedGraphic.png
to (Administrative Director)
pastedGraphic.png
Hi (Administrative Director),
What are the “employment options” for teachers refusing “mandated” covid testing?
Thank you,

–
**
Director of …
Oct 11, 2021, 4:46 PM
pastedGraphic.png
to me
pastedGraphic.png
Mr. Herman,

Thank you for your inquiry. An employee has two options if they do not want to participate in covid testing. The employee may pursue a medical exemption through the medical interactive process or the employee may be placed on unpaid leave for up to a year per the HUSD HEA CBA. Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Take care,
Director

**
pastedGraphic.png
Herman, Carl
Oct 11, 2021, 6:24 PM
pastedGraphic.png
to Director
pastedGraphic.png
Thank you, (Director).

I’d like a medical exemption based on federal law US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) that requires administration of Emergency Use Authorized medical products (EUAs) to offer the option to refuse EUAs without penalty or discrimination. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, these include all Covid tests I’m aware of. Title 21 is US Code governing all US food and drug policies, and under Article 6 of the US Constitution is “supreme Law” when state law contradicts federal Law:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” ~ Article 6, US Constitution

Please grant my exemption based on these legal facts we teach all HUSD students that federal law is superior to state and local laws.

Offering the choice of unpaid leave up to a year is not what “option to refuse” means. “Option to refuse” cannot be applied with negative consequences, as that spectrum also includes segregation, apartheid, internment camps, and charges of domestic terrorism if one refused the “option” of either experimental injections or submission to weekly “tests.”

If you refuse my exemption, please explain how state and/or local policies are lawful when they violate federal law that is crystal-clear in letter and intent that nobody in the US is ever coerced into experimental medicine. Article 6 removes any ambiguity by “binding” all state judges to rule federal law is superior to state law. This fact voids any legal argument that state law can “mandate” required EUAs under threat of income termination, and every judge is Constitutionally bound to rule so.

We all are under the STATE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE to support and defend US and CA Constitutions of limited government under California and Federal Laws.

Please also provide pertinent written information about the “medical interactive process.”

My right to refuse experimental products should be quickly accepted by HUSD, unless HUSD has an argument that state law/mandates are superior to federal law.

That said, because I want to avoid conflict with HUSD on this point at this time, and to express cooperation, I accept your offer for a medical interactive process while asserting federal law requires any “medical interactive process” to administer EUAs as optional at the will of each individual.

In conclusion, please respond with:
An answer how HUSD policy (based on state policy) of required teacher use of EUAs or receive the “option” of unpaid leave is lawful when federal policy requires EUAs only and always be administered with everyone’s power to accept or refuse experimental medical products with free and full choice.
Written information what the “medical interactive process” is.
What we do next for the medical interactive process.

Thank you,
Carl
pastedGraphic.png
**

Herman, Carl
Oct 12, 2021, 6:18 PM
pastedGraphic.png
to Director
pastedGraphic.png
Hi (Director),
Please respond with what you have, and status on what you do not yet have:

An answer how HUSD policy (based on state policy) of required teacher use of EUAs or receive the “option” of unpaid leave is lawful when federal policy requires EUAs only and always be administered with everyone’s power to accept or refuse experimental medical products with free and full choice.
Written information what the “medical interactive process” is.
What we do next for the medical interactive process.
Thank you,
Carl
pastedGraphic.png
**

Director of …

Oct 13, 2021, 3:01 PM
pastedGraphic.png
to (Assistant Superintendent), me
pastedGraphic.png
Mr. Herman,

If you are interested in participating in the medical interactive process, you will need to complete this form and attach a note from your medical provider that outlines what accommodations you need. Once that has been submitted, you will be scheduled for a meeting with an HUSD HR administrator to review your request for reasonable accommodations based upon the note from your medical provider. The District will then make a determination based upon that meeting and will notify you of whether or not we are able to make those accommodations.

Take care,
Director
pastedGraphic.png
**

Herman, Carl
Oct 13, 2021, 6:02 PM
pastedGraphic.png
to Director, (Assistant Superintendent)
pastedGraphic.png
Thank you. The form you provide includes “personal hardship.” Please provide the source information of what that means.

Please also:
An answer how HUSD policy (based on state policy) of required teacher use of EUAs or receive the “option” of unpaid leave is lawful when federal policy requires EUAs only and always be administered with everyone’s power to accept or refuse experimental medical products with free and full choice.
pastedGraphic.png

**

Herman, Carl
Oct 14, 2021, 7:23 PMpastedGraphic.png
pastedGraphic.png
to Director, (Assistant Superintendent)

Again: The form you provide includes “personal hardship.” Please provide the source information of what that means.

The two of you are ignoring our mutual STATE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE to support and defend US Constitution Article 6 that federal law cannot be violated with a state “order”/”mandate”/whatever. You are both empowered to stand with me. Wherever you stand, it will be known in our community.

Make good choices.
pastedGraphic.png

**

Herman, Carl
Oct 15, 2021, 3:46 PM
pastedGraphic.png
to Director, (Assistant Superintendent)
pastedGraphic.png
(Director and Assistant Superintendent):
You have ignored the question on federal law limits, so I will take your final answer as refusing to respond.

I will persist, and will complain if you fail to answer my 3rd request by Monday: The form you provide includes “personal hardship.” Please provide the source information of what that means.

And I’ll add this one: please provide the source material for what a “medical condition” is on the form you provided.

Please don’t force other people to waste our professional time on answers you should provide any employee with ease.
pastedGraphic.png
**

Director of …

Oct 18, 2021, 3:21 PM (13 days ago)pastedGraphic.png
to me
pastedGraphic.png
Mr. Herman,

I apology for the delayed response. I am working to get you the information that you requested. I hope to have it for you soon.

Take care,
Director

**

Herman, Carl

Oct 28, 2021, 3:38 PM (3 days ago)
pastedGraphic.png
to (Principal, teachers’ union President and VP, Assistant Superintendent, Carl, Director
pastedGraphic.png
Dear Colleagues,
I’m sorry to take everyone’s professional time on this, but (Director) is not answering what I’m sure is legally-required information to provide employees about medical exemptions, so I escalate the question to my immediate administrator, union leadership, and (Director’s) supervisor.

(Director) has failed to provide since October 11:
The medical exemption form you provide includes “personal hardship.” Please provide the source information of what that means.
Please provide the source material for what a “medical condition” is on the form you provided.
Thank you,

**
Herman, Carl
3:36 PM (0 minutes ago)
pastedGraphic.png
to (Principal, teachers’ union President and VP, Assistant Superintendent, Carl, Director
pastedGraphic.png
“Students need to know their rights and responsibilities as American citizens and have both the capacity and willingness to participate in a democratic system of government. Educators want students to understand the meaning of the Constitution as a social contract that defines a democratic government and guarantees individual rights. Educators want them to respect the right of others to have different beliefs and ideas. Students need to take an active role as citizens and know how to work for change in a democratic society. The value, the importance, and the fragility of democratic institutions must be understood by all students. Only a small fraction of the world’s population now or in the past has been fortunate enough to live under a democratic form of government, and students need to understand the conditions that encourage democracy to prosper.” ~ California History-Social Science Framework, pages 14-15

(Assistant Superintendent and Director):
What is the status of answering OBVIOUS questions about providing employees legally required medical exemptions to experimental medical products (EUAs)? You are not competent to administer medical exemptions if you do not have the definitions of its essential terms.
I assert my rights under California Health and Safety Code § 24176 that EUAs uphold everyone’s right to “Be given the opportunity to decide to consent or not to consent to a medical experiment without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence on the subject’s decision,” and notify HUSD that I am exempt from EUAs. Please acknowledge my exemption that HUSD will respect with no further influence on my option to refuse experimental medicine. If you refuse to honor my rights under California Health and Safety Code § 24176, then explain how HUSD refusal of this Health and Safety code is lawful. HUSD’s current “answer” that HUSD must “follow orders” does not address how those “orders” can violate standing law(s).
(Teachers’ union President and VP): how is HEA’s cooperation with EUA policies lawful given California Health and Safety Code § 24176? You have claimed that CTA has provided “all relevant legal citations” by asserting federal law Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) “option to refuse” EUAs only means (Principal) can’t tackle (union VP) in a hall for forcible experimental injections when HUSD mandates it for “health” (again, correct me if I misunderstand CTA’s stated position). Please explain how CTA’s answer is a “relevant legal citation” to demonstrate California Health and Safety Code § 24176 compliance.

And how can HUSD unilaterally destroy a contractual Grievance, then conjure it into the straw-man argument of an “email request” that’s an “employee complaint” they dismiss as “against the legality of EUAs” while ignoring the questions of California Health and Safety Code § 24176 and Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III)? This is my 3rd request for this answer.

(Principal): what support can you provide as principal when the Director of (…) and HR Assistant Superintendent fail to provide one of your teachers legally-required definitions for medical exemption from experimental medical products?

All: There are two sides to choose from:
Stand with me for answers to obvious questions in service to our mutual STATE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE to “support and defend” US and CA Constitutions of limited government under Constitutional laws.
Ignore obvious questions about dictatorial “emergency” “orders” from government in prima facia-violations of three definitive laws, dishonor our Oath, and “just obey orders.” Yes, just obey despite OBVIOUS questions about legality that CTA/HUSD/HUSD either refuse to answer or provide OBVIOUS lies like CTA claiming federal protection against unwanted experimental medicines is only limited to not being kidnapped at work for forcible injections whenever government “mandates” “health” “boosters.” CTA lies in omission to ignore how EUA tests and masks federally protected with “option to refuse” in Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) is now somehow “spell cast” to mean “student options for refusal are either segregation to home and without access to ‘EUAs only’ school properties, social opportunities, and extra-curricular activities” and “teacher option for unpaid leave” (please talk me down or agree with me what CTA wrote to “justify” compliance with “option to refuse”).
You all might want to consider what the US military says about confronting apparent illegal “orders.” Two missing details from that summary:
The first step to challenge an apparent illegal order is to receive written explanation how the orders are lawful given apparent contradictions with existing law(s).
If the ordering authority will not provide a rational written explanation, then military personnel are Oath-bound to resist such orders, with officers authorized to arrest those issuing the orders. An arrest is the lawful act to stop an apparent crime in progress, receive a response from the suspect, then for any question/application about the facts and/or law to be resolved with the appropriate and constitutional legal process.
My professional opinion for your respected consideration:

Justice is coming.

Arrests are coming, and exactly as described above with US military.

We all know my questions are rational, obvious, and required to be asked and answered in a constitutional republic.

We all know ignoring such questions, obfuscation, and censorship are elements of dictatorial government unlimited by law, and engaged in Orwellian propaganda to change the meaning of words (“option to refuse” now means “required for employment,” with some areas testing “required for social interactions of any kind”). I’ve at least temporarily overcome HUSD directive/“orders” to “not use district email” for such questions, but HUSD refuses to rescind taking the first of four definitive steps to terminate my employment when I challenged their censorship.

Not one of you have attempted to defend CTA’s “answer” that the definitive federal law of Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) “option to refuse” only prevents kidnapping for forced injections at employers’ will. Not one of you have spoken in defense of HUSD’s position that “just follow orders” is sufficient ordering authority because you know from history it’s an illegal defense, and informing US military policy to challenge apparently illegal orders. Not one of you have addressed our Oath to “support and defend” limited government under our Constitutions, not even once.

If any of you wish to change sides to join me in request of county and/or state written explanation of order legality, now’s the time.

Choose your side wisely: all students, all staff, and all our community will know where everyone stood when the confusion ends.

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
~ Article 6, US Constitution

Update 3:

I challenge our teachers’ union President, VP, Executive Director to answer a basic legal question they so far refuse to answer, but from another angle:

Subject: How does CTA “no forcible injections at work” defense cover “option to refuse” EUA tests and masks?

1:02 PM (0 minutes ago)
pastedGraphic.png
to (teachers’ union President, VP, Executive Director)

Dear (teachers’ union President, VP, Executive Director):
CTA’s “legal justification” is that Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) “option to refuse” EUAs only means (principal’s name) can’t tackle (union VP) in a hall for forcible experimental injections (again, correct me if I misunderstand CTA’s stated position).

Please explain how this is “all relevant legal citations” that “option to refuse” EUA tests and masks means “student options for refusal are either expulsion OR segregation at home without access to ‘EUAs only’ school properties, social opportunities, and extra-curricular activities” and “teacher option for unpaid leave”?

Does CTA have dictatorial powers to unilaterally destroy the crystal-clear letter and intent of Title 21 to uphold the Nuremberg Code definition of “option to refuse” that’s made explicit in California Health and Safety Code § 24176 that everyone has the right to “Be given the opportunity to decide to consent or not to consent to a medical experiment without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence on the subject’s decision”?

As of now, HEA leadership accepts CTA’s lie that they can dictatorially and outrageously invert “option to refuse” into it’s Orwellian-opposite.

Everyone will see through this lie, and soon, and see where everyone stood.

Either stand with me to demand answers from CTA and HUSD, or be known for standing with CTA’s “answer” that would fail any 12th Grade US Government class case study as an example of lawful policy within a “constitutional republic” form of government, and known for standing with HUSD’s “just follow government orders to take their medical experiments, dictatorial subject.”

You all know I’m right with what I point to, millions of Americans point to, and you have all had full and fair choice to either defend or reject.
Carl

**

Up next!

Without a broader breakthrough to arrest those issuing these illegal orders, all I can do is skirmish to slow dictatorial progress, or so it seems. I’m at 95% certainty that White Hats are in control behind the scenes, and will participate in a “Great Awakening” breakthrough for the public to recognize what Patriots have demonstrated for decades upon decades: the Covid lies are part of a broader Emperor’s New Clothes pattern of an ongoing illegal rogue state empire.

Stay tuned for our next episode

**
I make all factual assertions as a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History (also credentialed in Mathematics), with all economic factual claims receiving zero refutation since I began writing in 2008 among Advanced Placement Macroeconomics teachers on our discussion board, public audiences of these articles, and international conferences (and here). I invite readers to empower their civic voices with the strongest comprehensive facts most important to building a brighter future. I challenge professionals, academics, and citizens to add their voices for the benefit of all Earth’s inhabitants.
**
Carl Herman worked with both US political parties over 18 years and two UN Summits with the citizen’s lobby, RESULTS, for US domestic and foreign policy to end poverty. He can be reached at [email protected]

Note: My work from 2011 to October 2017 is on Washington’s Blog, which the owner closed from Internet censorship in 2019, and here since. Work back to 2009 is censored by Examiner.com (blocked author pages: here, here). This means that some links in essays are inactive. If you’d like to see those articles, go to http://archive.org/web/, paste the expired link into the search box, click “Browse history,” then click onto the screenshots of that page for each time it was screen-shot and uploaded to webarchive.